Replies

Sorry, I don't really know how to take your post.

Maybe I'm pissing into the wind hear, but my take on the matter is that most religions are based on a core of spirituality. I've been raised a Christian, I also like to read about other religions, seeking out commonalities. Most religions have the equivilance of "the ten commandmants", although they might not be expressed in the same straight forward way. If you would take the "ten commandments" to heart, and do your honest best to be "Christ-like" in every action, you would be living by the tenets of most religions.

You might have confused my comments on religion and spirituality....there is a difference. Just as there is a difference between spirituality and mysticism. There is also a difference between Mysticism and the occult. I figured I'd get knocked around by someone who was confused by my post :)

The book I mentioned is interesting because it tries (and does an excellent job) of tying in Science and Spirituality. The Religion the author chose to use as a guide was Buddism, mainly because unlike Christianity, the religion of Buddism seems to lend itself better to this particular subject. This is an observation on my part and should not be taken in any way as a slam on Christianity.

Consequently, the book supports a supreme being, so you can chill out.

It does an excellent job (IMHO) of showing how such a Supreme being parallels with current theories of quantum physics. In a nutshell it is one of the few reads that supports science and Spirituality, (or religion, if you choose).

Multiply all of these improbabilities and they spike to infinity.

At heart this is a self contradictory statement. If improbabilities are infinite, so are the probabilities. So the following

But if a miracle is defined as an infinitely improbable phenomenon, then our existence is a miracle, which no theory natural or supernatural will ever explain.

doesn't make sense either. Absolutely nothing can explain it, so why is he trying here? Just some of the many things I found wrong with this article.

We must keep reimagining our relationship to the infinite.

Does the 'infinite' in fact exist? I'm not assuming one way or the other but without answering this question first, what does this statement really mean?

The problem is that any truth or antitruth, no matter how initially revelatory and awe-inspiring, sooner or later turns into garbage that occludes our vision of the living world.

Including what this writer is writing here, i presume. Therefore everything is garbage and we can't believe anything anybody says, including this guy.

Anything that helps you see --- really see --- the wondrousness of the world serves a mystical purpose.

Huh, what did he say? Does that include or not include the garbage?

When he returned from this hellish solitude, back to the world and his dear friends, he felt "reborn," and he was overcome with gratitude and joy at the "wonderful life we have here." This is by far the greatest gift that mystical experiences can bestow on us: to see -- really see -- all that is right with the world.

That means the psylocibyn worked, doesn't it? Isn't this guy contradicting himself?

Just as believers in a beneficent deity should be haunted by the problem of natural evil, so gnostics, atheists, pessimists, and nihilists should be haunted by the problem of friendship, love, beauty, truth, humor, compassion, fun.

Haunted by the problems of friendship, love, beauty, truth, humor, compassion and fun. These are problems? And nothing previously mentioned included gnostics, they are never mentioned, defined or included.

While I admire the guy for poking holes in just about everything all he ends up with is an empty bag.